Steve Wozniak: Ending Net Neutrality Will End the Internet as We Know It

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak penned a USA Today op-ed with a former Federal Communications Commission chairman, urging the current FCC to stop its proposed rollback of net neutrality regulations: they argue that it will threaten freedom for internet users and may corrode democracy, noting that fast lanes or "paid prioritization" create anticompetitive incentives for ISPs to favor their own services over those of their competitors.

The path forward is clear. The FCC must abandon its ill-conceived plan to end net neutrality. Instead of creating fast lanes for the few, it should be moving all of us to the fast lane by encouraging competition in local broadband connectivity and pushing companies to deliver higher speeds at more affordable prices. It’s the right thing for us as consumers and as citizens.
 
God help us if we ever becomes like china, china been censoring the internet like crazy.
 
Woz needs to set off some nanoprobes to swing the FCC round.
Problem then is they will replicate and we'll all become part of the collective.
We're doomed I say, doomed!

Good on him for not using nanoprobes perhaps then.
 
Wozniak is not enough of a corporatist, does not adhere to FCA regulations. His lack of belief in the invisible hand is quite disturbing.
 
Galvin said:
God help us if we ever becomes like china, china been censoring the internet like crazy.
Click to expand...

Except unlike China, we'll have a different outcome from net neutrality being taken away. Here, our corporate overlords would be the ones making the rules for profit. Whereas in China, it's an authoritative government making rules to protect itself "and its citizens".
 
Chunder said:
Except unlike China, we'll have a different outcome from net neutrality being taken away. Here, our corporate overlords would be the ones making the rules for profit. Whereas in China, it's an authoritative government making rules to protect itself "and its citizens".
Click to expand...

Clearly content which is controversial and not advertiser friendly harms the corporation. The corporation has a right not to fund that content. This harms the corporation image. Harming the corporation image is like stealing from the corporation. The corporation has employed moderator bots to automatically filter controversial comments and issue arrest warrants. The corporation must be protected. Those who harm the corporation shall be arrested, charged, fined, and deported to the industrial Chinan zone where they will serve a period of factory servitude within the harmed corporation's factory or partner's factory. After such time is over the employee will be returned to the free citizen zone upon signing a non disclosure contract and pledging not to labor for the corporation competitors.

Corporatist politics and economics cannot continue. I say corporate terms of service and contracts do not deserve the right to overrule constitutional and human rights because it hurts their image. It is not the responsibility of the government or public to maintain the image or income of a corporation. We are not Ferengi.
 
The biggest problem with net neutrality is there is no regulation on zero rating.

That's complete horse shit.
 
The real problem with net neutrality is all the corporate bigwigs and shitty lobbyists getting what they want. It's obvious that the ethical and proper way to do business and keep the consumers happy is second hand to profits and patting each other on the back.
 
I think the sad reality is corporatism is a forgone conclusion at this point.
 
These telecoms get handouts from the gov, therefore regulate them to oblivion. There never was a free maket of ISPs.
 
Ajit Pai's delusion is that there was a free market to bring the market back to. If you want to give ISPs more control, then you have to take away the monopolies first. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Allow me to give you the opportunity to lay it out clear:

What Net Neutrality regulations are currently (or have been) in effect?

And...

What has prevented any of the ISP's from already doing at any point in the past that which many of you are so afraid will certainly happen?

In other words...

How is the Internet that we know today any different then an Internet without Net Neutrality?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liver
like this
No offense to The Woz, because I do believe he's a good person and has done some insanely great things (even in spite of Steve Jobs basically kneecapping him at most every turn in their time together and Woz never actually admitting it), but considering the fact that he has stated publicly that he has intentions of moving to Australia (since he has citizenship there now) and plans to "live and die as an Australian" then I say get a move on, Steve. ;)

I really do appreciate what he contributed to modern technology but, if he wants to get the fuck outta the U.S. then by all means get the fuck outta the U.S., the sooner the better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liver
like this
Tiberian said:
... "live and die as an Australian" ...
Click to expand...

This seems more like some facetious bit about broadband access being so shit in his state that rebranding to Aussie is a viable alternative. Nerd jokes.

Regardless, it sounds more inline with his support of healthy tech competition and net neutrality than a slight at a nation. Keep flapping that flag, though. It's fanning the fire.
 
freedom is fleeting... Here, there, everywhere. Welcome to your government/corporate dystopian future. I'll still take the us... Cause..... Merica
 
The net's existed fine without net neutrality for the last ~30 years. I don't think Government oversight is the answer...
 
Tiberian said:
No offense to The Woz, because I do believe he's a good person and has done some insanely great things (even in spite of Steve Jobs basically kneecapping him at most every turn in their time together and Woz never actually admitting it), but considering the fact that he has stated publicly that he has intentions of moving to Australia (since he has citizenship there now) and plans to "live and die as an Australian" then I say get a move on, Steve. ;)

I really do appreciate what he contributed to modern technology but, if he wants to get the fuck outta the U.S. then by all means get the fuck outta the U.S., the sooner the better.
Click to expand...

God damn right.
 
Pabuchok said:
The net's existed fine without net neutrality for the last ~30 years. I don't think Government oversight is the answer...
Click to expand...


This is my first instinct on these things.

Any time the government gets involved in anything, it makes it worse.
This is assuming that the free market is allowed to operate the way it was designed. Once the government starts giving preferential treatment, or making it really hard for new companies to enter the market, then the free market stops working so well.

Then, the government wants to come in and fix the problem that they created.
 
Nenu said:
Woz needs to set off some nanoprobes to swing the FCC round.
Problem then is they will replicate and we'll all become part of the collective.
We're doomed I say, doomed!

Good on him for not using nanoprobes perhaps then.
Click to expand...


This is a really funny comment. Very nice:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nenu
like this
Yeah great. Except that was NOT what the net neutrality rules ended up being after they went through the corrupt democrat controlled FCC. Not that the republicrats are any better though.

Putting controls on the internet in the hands of any government agency is a bad idea. Even if it is under the guise of protecting it.
 
westrock2000 said:
Allow me to give you the opportunity to lay it out clear:

What Net Neutrality regulations are currently (or have been) in effect?

And...

What has prevented any of the ISP's from already doing at any point in the past that which many of you are so afraid will certainly happen?

In other words...

How is the Internet that we know today any different then an Internet without Net Neutrality?
Click to expand...

The net before Cable broadband when we had line sharing, you could have a hundred companies offering dialup service through the same line. Today the last mile pipes are owned by the same company that provides the service, resulting in many major conflicts of interest.

In many parts of Europe when they moved to broadband they did so without abandoning the line sharing concept while we decided to move to last mile ownership model, again through this kind of lobbying, with great failure today.

So yeah, comparing things to 30 years ago just says we could mandate line sharing and then net neutrality wont matter, but I doubt the companies would be willing to do so now that the cat is out of the bag.
 
Last edited:
Wierdo said:
The net before Cable broadband when we had line sharing, you could have a hundred companies offering dialup service through the same line. Today the last mile pipes are owned by the same company that provides the service, resulting in many major conflicts of interest.

In many parts of Europe when they moved to broadband they did so without abandoning the line sharing concept while we decided to move to last mile ownership model, again through this kind of lobbying, with great failure today.

So yeah, comparing things to 30 years ago just says we could mandate line sharing and then net neutrality wont matter, but I doubt the companies would be willing to do so now that the cat is out of the bag.
Click to expand...

That's dialup though. You can still have 100 different dialup companies right? The reason they popped up was because they were able to exploit the nature of a phone line, which inherently gives the user the ability to connect to anyone they please. Cable though was not originally designed for this type of freedom (as a TV conduit), it just so happened that the cable companies were able to modify their infrastructure to support data transmission. But that doesn't mean that other companies are entitled to use their product just because capitalism.

And you still had to pay for phone line usage to the phone company. You paid for ISP access on top of that. So places like Juno and Netzero weren't completely free, you still had to pay AT&T for the phone line itself. You don't think that the succesful opening up of the cable companies lines to competition in Europe wasn't also the result of lobbying? That other companies weren't chomping at the bit to get in on the action?
 
craigdt said:
This is my first instinct on these things.

Any time the government gets involved in anything, it makes it worse.
This is assuming that the free market is allowed to operate the way it was designed. Once the government starts giving preferential treatment, or making it really hard for new companies to enter the market, then the free market stops working so well.

Then, the government wants to come in and fix the problem that they created.
Click to expand...
Agree with your principles. But taking regulation away won't make this a free market. When Comcast can lobby and sue away fiber there is no free market.
 
westrock2000 said:
That's dialup though. You can still have 100 different dialup companies right? The reason they popped up was because they were able to exploit the nature of a phone line, which inherently gives the user the ability to connect to anyone they please. Cable though was not originally designed for this type of freedom (as a TV conduit), it just so happened that the cable companies were able to modify their infrastructure to support data transmission. But that doesn't mean that other companies are entitled to use their product just because capitalism.

And you still had to pay for phone line usage to the phone company. You paid for ISP access on top of that. So places like Juno and Netzero weren't completely free, you still had to pay AT&T for the phone line itself. You don't think that the succesful opening up of the cable companies lines to competition in Europe wasn't also the result of lobbying? That other companies weren't chomping at the bit to get in on the action?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the point being made is here, there's no technical reason for cable to get special treatment versus the old lines, they should have been classified as common carriers the same as phone companies, but alas, as always, money corrupts.

This is why today Europe has superior options and lower prices in most areas than we do, only places such as Chattanooga's municipal fiber or Google's efforts match them, so this system of not sharing the last mile is a major obstacle to good access.

In Europe the ISPs lease the line from the dumb pipe provider and then take care of the billing, there's no complexity in this process, in fact in many ways it's simpler due to better utilization of shared standards.

Net neutrality was a compromise, it put limits on how far ISP monopolies could go in milking customers. If it's not gonna cut it then we're back to square one and should seriously consider opening up those lines and catch up to Europe's success story. No lobbying here or in government is gonna change this fact.
 
Last edited:
The internet is destined to become a segregated block of regional information sources just like a library might. American libraries are probably very different from North Korean libraries in what they offer. Sure it'd be nice if they all had the exact same content catering to the highest denominator but they dont. Assuming NK even has a single library, im sure there is about 5 books in the entire building all with a picture of Kim on them. You want more? You head to a different library. Same with the internet in the next 20 years. You want a full bodied internet? Then the USA is for you. You want a censored internet with only "approved" information available? You go to Europe or whatever (right to be forgotten laws).
 
SecretStash said:
Agree with your principles. But taking regulation away won't make this a free market. When Comcast can lobby and sue away fiber there is no free market.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. So many of our industries are far from "free market" though that they are an unrecognizable travesty. No wonder most of our younglings think capitalism is evil. They haven't ever seen a true form of it.

But yeah- in its current form, you can't just dial back regulations on the telecommunications industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top